A Cambridge University law exam has caused a furore in the national press because of its explicit content.
200 undergraduates sitting their criminal law paper were asked to consider the offences committed at a fictional Cambridge college drinking society. The question posits a familiar student scenario in which a female student tricks one man into getting gobbled by another man, bums a second man with a bottle and rips off a third's pubic hair, resulting in an infection and untimely death.
Media outlets including the Daily Mail, The Sun and The Telegraph have all spun the story as an outrage, using frothing tweets from non-law students ("horrific - beyond acceptable") to bolster their case.
However, as Cambridge student mag The Tab reports, the law students themselves were largely unfazed, no doubt thanks to their familiarity with R v Brown. One Christs student even admitted "I liked the question. The circumstances felt familiar, and that was a comfort in the stressful atmosphere of an exam room".
A University spokesman forced to defend the paper said "hypothetical situations are presented in order to test students' understanding of different aspects of Criminal Law", before hurrying home clutching a two litre bottle of Pepsi and a tub of Veet.
Tip Off ROF
200 undergraduates sitting their criminal law paper were asked to consider the offences committed at a fictional Cambridge college drinking society. The question posits a familiar student scenario in which a female student tricks one man into getting gobbled by another man, bums a second man with a bottle and rips off a third's pubic hair, resulting in an infection and untimely death.
Sandra may have issues |
Media outlets including the Daily Mail, The Sun and The Telegraph have all spun the story as an outrage, using frothing tweets from non-law students ("horrific - beyond acceptable") to bolster their case.
However, as Cambridge student mag The Tab reports, the law students themselves were largely unfazed, no doubt thanks to their familiarity with R v Brown. One Christs student even admitted "I liked the question. The circumstances felt familiar, and that was a comfort in the stressful atmosphere of an exam room".
A University spokesman forced to defend the paper said "hypothetical situations are presented in order to test students' understanding of different aspects of Criminal Law", before hurrying home clutching a two litre bottle of Pepsi and a tub of Veet.
Comments
259
294
258
288
280
297
Describe Sandra's norks.
302
279
275
301
288
267
Query whether in latter case there's a murder \ manslaughter argument (there is but will fail).
Sandra can be done for various conspiracies to [x], joint enterprises etc.
Basics.
294
285
Consider what offences, if any, have been committed.
If I write "ok", do I get full marks?
Do you really need the "consider" bit?
317
289
I didn't do much on sexual offences. The first two are sexual assaults, second could also be battery. The third could be gross negligence manslaughter but you'd have to consider whether the victim's actions broke the chain of causation. I think this would come down to whether it was foreseeable that the victim would be too embarrassed to seek medical attention. If not, then I guess it would amount to GBH.
277
273
283
288
290
272
280
260
Top LADs.
300
301
265
294
270
279
282
263
278
275
296
247